Browse Now . . .

Compromise

A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This
means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to
offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some
fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal.

It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually
accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may
bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one’s product, and
agree on a sum somewhere between one’s demand and his offer. The mutually
accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that
the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and
the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one’s product for nothing, no compromise,
agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or
the other.

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the
burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a
total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property.

Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic
principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to
general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things
to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial
victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial
defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong,
but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect
for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in
the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no
choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle,
willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the
guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to
jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each
other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that
can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can
profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil,
the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force
of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the
virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a
cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising
evil.

The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the
first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.

In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic
principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different
basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to
the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but
are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.